> Richard Dahan, who is deaf, said he had struggled at his former job at an Apple Store in Maryland for six years because his manager refused to provide a sign-language interpreter for him to communicate with customers, which federal law requires under some circumstances.
This just doesn't seem like a reasonable accommodation for a retail job. Your whole job is to communicate with the customers. If you need to hire another person to do the communicating, what are you doing there? Why not just hire the interpreter?
This is like if you're in a wheelchair and you get a job to hang drywall. They pay you, but then have to hire another person to actually hang the drywall while you...point out where to put it?
I bought an iPhone from an Apple Store employee who couldn't speak but used a phone to communicate with me by typing out their messages. It was perfectly fine.
I'm a bit surprised speech to text these days wouldn't basically take you as far as you need to go for a deaf employee.
That said, if you take away jobs with a large communication component from the deaf, that rules out A LOT. I think reasonable accommodations should be provided, versus saying "most jobs are unreasonable for you to have."
Is this is someone who is either looking for an angle to litigate with a rich company or has completely unrealistic expectations or both? I feel like if you had a real conversation with this person and got to the root of how they feel they would know their ask is unreasonable. I’m sure they may also feel like they have been dealt a bad hand and want to find a way to be compensated. While this route may make a few lawyers happy I really doubt that winning a lawsuit against Apple for not hiring a sign language interpreter will bring them any peace.
What I have been noticing and I could be completely wrong and or biased here is that we have a large population of folks in the US that are struggling with mental health issues and that manifests in a lot of odd ways. This seems to be one of them.
+1 As a society we want to do all we can to accommodate the handicapped so they can work, and many deaf persons are extremely effective lip-readers able to handle retail customer interactions. If Richard's lip-reading isn't up to the job, a non customer facing role would be better for Richard, either that or have Richard do email and message chat customer interactions that are compatible with his deafness.
There’s a lot of weird comments in here by people who don’t know anything about deaf people.
1. Text is a common medium for communicating with the deaf. Younger deaf people in particular will be fine with this
2. VRS is also an option, but it would be awkward in that scenario. VRS is subsidized by the government. VRS predates Facetime but both have been complimentary for deaf people
3. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to expect Apple to run their own VRS-like service optimized for deaf retail employees and situations, considering they make Facetime, and counting all the other anecdotes of interaction with deaf people here. The same should be true for any huge retail operation - Macy’s, Home Depot, Costco, etc… If you go to a hospital they already have something like this.
The interpreter has a job already - it’s to interpret. If they wanted to be an Apple specialist I think they would have applied for that job. Interpreting and doing the job of an Apple specialist are not the same thing. It’s possible the interpreter would be a terrible Apple specialist.
Why not just hire an interpreter? It’s a win-win-win: a deaf person had a job, an interpreter has a job, deaf customers are better served, hearing customers are better served.
And to top it all off Apple still makes a ton of money! What does an interpreter really in the grand scheme of things when you’re a trillion dollar company like Apple? What’s the cost of an interpreter really to them? I get this idea that corporations are profit maximizing entities, but we’ve really taken it a bit far when we can’t pay a little extra for common decency even when record profits are coming in. Like, maybe if times were tough we’d have a different conversation, but Apple isn’t exactly hurting for cash here. We’re not even asking for decency, just to follow the law. They’ll bend over backwards to help out a thug like Putin when his lawyers send a takedown demand, but to do a solid for their deaf customers and employees… well they can’t be bothered.
It's unclear from the article, but there are plenty of roles (eg. if you work at the Genius bar, etc) where it doesn't make sense to hire an interpreter.
> If you need to hire another person to do the communicating, what are you doing there? Why not just hire the interpreter?
A good question to ask Apple. Why are they hiring such people and then ignoring their workplace demands that would allow them to do thier job satisfactorily? Is there some federal program that allows them to claim some tax benefit by hiring the disabled? Is that why Apple doesn't care about them or their job performance?
How does the incidental learning work with the iPad? Are they experiencing equal employment opportunities as others? How can they contribute during the meetings without an interpreter? Should our expectations of them be lower because they are disabled?
You could have one Apple store in an area that always has a deaf person/sign language interpreter at hand and market it to people who want or need that!
Apple does pretty well in the accessibility department, they could use someone demonstrating it.
>This is like if you're in a wheelchair and you get a job to hang drywall.
You could view it as a full employment plan.
The next logical step is to have a deaf man who only signs in Irish Sign Language. The first interpreter converts that to ASL, the second into spoken English.
I don't believe Apple or secrecy is the story here. I think the real story is how the pandemic + slack has changed corporate politics. It used to be that most corporate concerns were raised through HR or the management chain, and power ultimately rested with the executive. Now, Slack means it's much easier to put anyone on blast, and it's much harder to control the narrative. Combined with the pandemic, where all socialization happens through these tools, and old corporate cultures are disappearing. Apple is probably one of those that relied on in-person culture more than most. However, I think what's happening here is happening everywhere that has company-wide chat.
There are a few bigger stories at play here (amongst many) that I see this article as an instance of:
1. Cultural 'meme' & trend that has dramatically spread throughout mostly american, urban, educated, elite/elite-adjacent spaces over the last 7-9 years that lionizes and rewards those who can claim they are a 'victim'. This meme favors certain immutable characteristics as inherently providing victimhood status. If you were born with an immutable characteristic that's held in favor by the meme, you have many advantages available to you. Nobody is supposed to acknowledge those benefits according to this meme. So you can both be objectively very privileged and also considered a mostly helpless victim of an oppressor class.
2. Internet has allowed anyone to be heard, no matter the level in the hierarchy of a company. And if you know how to use the right words according to this victimhood meme (regardless of objective victim status), you have a good chance of being rewarded both socially and professionally. This is a pathway that some take if they don't believe they'll be able to succeed by other means.
3. Increasing trend toward 'safetyism', where the concept of harm is becoming looser and more abstract. You don't need to even be objectively or provably harmed anymore to claim you were harmed and thus victimized.
Given all of the above, it's not surprising that big tech companies who operate in these elite spaces will experience 'unrest' amongst their employees. Cultural winds have created pathways for people to both legitimately and illegitimately air grievances to attempt to be rewarded socially/professionally.
(And lest anyone interpret the above as suggesting nobody is ever objectively or truly victimized, I am most definitely not saying that.)
People who work at very rich companies get very, very spoiled.
I was in Apple R&D for four years (during that period after Jobs left and before he returned). No one was hungry, few people I met were ambitious. I left mainly because they decided to treat software testers as second class citizens, and had no interest in supporting my attempts to innovate in the testing realm. I went to Borland, where morale was high and everyone wanted to beat Microsoft (until they gave up and basically bought our team).
The weird thing is that Apple worked really hard training its managers about the law and about good management practices in those days. I suspect they still do. I suspect that it has simply been overwhelmed by youngsters who expect mommy and daddy to fix everything up for their maximum comfort.
"she had left Apple after spending several years fighting a decision to reassign her to a role that she said had involved more work for less pay. She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
I'm impressed that Apple let her spend "several years" fighting a reassignment. I'm also not very sympathetic to this person though. I've quit a job because I got reorg'd into more work for less pay. It sucks, but I don't think it means my employer is problematic or bad or whatever. The role I had was no longer needed and I didn't like the new position I landed in, so I left. That sounds similar to what happened to this person.
>She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained that the company’s work on the minerals was not, in some cases, leading to meaningful change in some war-torn countries"
What other geopolitical problems does this person think Apple should be tackling other than resolving tribal conflicts in war torn central Africa? The Taliban? Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women? Haiti’s poverty?
A job is a job. You just quit and find another one if your employer no longer wants you or wants you to do something you don’t care for.
Is this attitude possibly because these companies hire based on the entire emotion that you’re special and elite and we’re all going to link arms and save the planet?
“She said Apple had begun trying to reassign her after she complained”
You quoted this, but seem to have ignored it. This was not a role that got deprecated, rather she complained that her/Apple’s work in that role was ineffective.
This is a very valid complaint, and the sign of a valuable employee. However, most corporations respond by covering up ineffectivity, which is why it turned out badly for her.
In UK/Canada less pay is a breach of employment contract/constructive dismissal/wrongful termination, and requires the employer to pay appropriate severance.
I expected this to be about CSAM when I opened the link, but I guess it's stuff that has been brewing even longer than that.
Dealing with highly paid, and highly desirable employees that can get a job at the drop of a hat, and which have ample savings to let them glide in any case, means that they have a lot of leverage. You need them just as much as they need you.
This is why political policy has been to keep away from full employment, and keep a continuous percentage of people unemployed at all times: power over labor. Without labor, capital and land are useless.
Yep. The increased leverage that low-wage employees had during the pandemic due to enhanced unemployment benefits gave them a taste of this as well. Lots of people being able to say “take this job and shove it” led to very real labor shortages in certain sectors.
If I was Tim Cook I would immediately shutdown slack and mandate everyone go back to using email. It’s always a tiny minority of activists organizing on slack who are causing a lot of the unrest in tech companies.
> It's always a tiny minority of activists organizing on slack who are causing a lot of the unrest in tech companies.
This is a common talking point to marginalize political activity in any situation: 'It's just a tiny minority agitating', etc. In every situation, a tiny minority appeals to the majority and sometimes it convinces them. (If a majority of Americans ever protested something, that would be over 160 million people in the streets. Just think of the logistics of food, water, and waste ... cellular data bandwidth ... Twitter, Facebook and Instagram load ...)
That's how change happens; we try to persuade each other. People who are more involved, motivated, skilled, available, etc. do more of the work. If there was an environmental problem in SF Bay, the people who have the knowledge and expertise about the issue, and the communication skills, would inform and try to persuade everyone else. I'm not going to investigate it myself.
An unofficial, definitely don't tell management slack would have 1000s of users before the email prohibiting it managed to finish sending to all employees. Draconian policies seem viable and like they'd work, but they require a certain amount of compliance to be effective.
That's the right direction, but the wrong policy. Basecamp's "no talking politics on work channels" is more likely to be effective, in part because spending work hours on other things - e.g. a political non-company slack - then becomes an issue of wasting time.
Tim Cook reaps what he sows. He started all this when he fired Antonio García Martínez in response to an employee petition. (Hint to Tim Cook: You should have fired each and every one of the employees who signed that petition.)
He made the wrong, worst people at the company feel "empowered" and now there's no stopping them.
Just a note, before Slack a lot of the company was just using iMessage - nobody wants that, 30+ people group chats with messages at all hours of the day was the worst digital communication experience I've ever seen at a company.
This would not help Apple’s case with the current Department of Labor probes, as well as the investigations complaints lodged with California’s Dept of Industrial Relations Labor Commissioner's Office. Organizing efforts are protected by federal law, as is discussing and sharing your compensation information with others (regarding pay equity).
The leader of this small group of "unrest" folks, Cher Scarlett, apparently got hired in April and has worked for 8 other tech companies, according to this story.
Color me unimpressed. She starts agitating after a few months of working entirely from home at a highly-paid gig? Did she even have time to get a clue about whether Apple's doing bad things or not? Or does she just kinda flit around from gig to gig looking for ways to cause trouble? I'm guessing less of the former, and more of the latter.
We have couple of groups at Apple, that are very unhappy with the company due to WFH policy. #remote-work-advocacy channel has gone through some phases, but right now they are at the grief cycle. It's mostly wfh memes and repetitive confirmation-bias articles. Come January, we will get to acceptance phase, and those who wanted to jump ship, will jump ship.
Today, during the yearly Tim Cook's hands, wfh chat was talking smack about Apple even though they've officially gotten a response from corporate. It even spilled over to #talk-apple chat. Though, I gotta agree with some criticism. Apple has shot itself in the foot when it publicly takes political sides, and keeps a low radar on certain issues when employees expect Apple to take a stance. Overall, yes, Slack has changed a lot about Apple's culture.
I think this is a poorly sourced and not a reliably fact checked article.
This is at least the 2nd time on HN that a report has suggested Ashley Gjovik was complaining about "toxic chemicals at work". The previous article referred to something published at "The Verge" - "her office is in an Apple building located on a superfund site"
<https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22666049/apple-fires-senio...>
The nytimes ought to be very embarrassed about this stupid error.
I note that the personal toxic superfund site issues were previously discussed on HN.
I am also somewhat confused about the persona of "Cher Scarlett". I do not think it is a real identity. I also have some serious doubts if they, or their alter ego, is actually employed at Apple. Reputable journalists could actually verify this with employment and tax records -- journalists would actually have to do the necessary due diligence.
Twitter suggests that "Cher Scarlett" is located in Seattle. (This would make them a remote worker for Apple). Also seemingly making quite a lot of tweets. When does this person do any work for Apple? Is this person the reason why Apple isn't responding to Security reports and the bug bounty program?
After reading many tweets I am failing to detect any comprehension of, or demonstration of, a computer security "mindset" -- something that, in my experience, does tend to manifest itself in the personality of security folks over extended periods of time.
I am unable to determine what sort of security role this person has.
I am not suggesting any malice or ill will towards "Cher Scarlett". I am trying to present this as a technical analysis.
In summary, I really question if "Cher Scarlett" is actually a real person in they way they are presenting themselves to be.
Many of us are curious to see how the pandemic and its aftermath will affect corporate politics and policies, not just at Apple but in other workplaces as well. It's tempting to draw general conclusions based on anecdotal, one-sided accounts of injustice and retribution. Perhaps there is also a bit of schadenfreude at work here.
I really don't have time to read the whole article. One of my closest friends worked right down the hall from Jobs and knew him on a first name basis. He said, and I quote, "he fucked up the raising of my kids with his reality distortion field. If I saw him coming down the hall I'd turn around and go the other way thinking "I don't want to talk to that mother fucker today, he's just going to mess up my life". Another one of my good friends, a Stanford Masters ME, has a daughter that briefly worked for Apple (Stanford grad as well). She left when she got shit for going home for dinner when she had the flu.
I'm embedded in the Apple universe, but I hate the company and what it has done to Silicon Valley.
It’s not the same, but majes me remember a question: im really ugly and with an ugly body by magazine standards. If i want to model, but they dont hire me because im not tall enough or good looking, is it discrimination?
[+] [-] fezzez|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imgabe|4 years ago|reply
This just doesn't seem like a reasonable accommodation for a retail job. Your whole job is to communicate with the customers. If you need to hire another person to do the communicating, what are you doing there? Why not just hire the interpreter?
This is like if you're in a wheelchair and you get a job to hang drywall. They pay you, but then have to hire another person to actually hang the drywall while you...point out where to put it?
[+] [-] majormajor|4 years ago|reply
I'm a bit surprised speech to text these days wouldn't basically take you as far as you need to go for a deaf employee.
That said, if you take away jobs with a large communication component from the deaf, that rules out A LOT. I think reasonable accommodations should be provided, versus saying "most jobs are unreasonable for you to have."
[+] [-] S_A_P|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dandotway|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prpl|4 years ago|reply
1. Text is a common medium for communicating with the deaf. Younger deaf people in particular will be fine with this
2. VRS is also an option, but it would be awkward in that scenario. VRS is subsidized by the government. VRS predates Facetime but both have been complimentary for deaf people
3. It wouldn’t be a huge leap to expect Apple to run their own VRS-like service optimized for deaf retail employees and situations, considering they make Facetime, and counting all the other anecdotes of interaction with deaf people here. The same should be true for any huge retail operation - Macy’s, Home Depot, Costco, etc… If you go to a hospital they already have something like this.
[+] [-] ModernMech|4 years ago|reply
The interpreter has a job already - it’s to interpret. If they wanted to be an Apple specialist I think they would have applied for that job. Interpreting and doing the job of an Apple specialist are not the same thing. It’s possible the interpreter would be a terrible Apple specialist.
Why not just hire an interpreter? It’s a win-win-win: a deaf person had a job, an interpreter has a job, deaf customers are better served, hearing customers are better served.
And to top it all off Apple still makes a ton of money! What does an interpreter really in the grand scheme of things when you’re a trillion dollar company like Apple? What’s the cost of an interpreter really to them? I get this idea that corporations are profit maximizing entities, but we’ve really taken it a bit far when we can’t pay a little extra for common decency even when record profits are coming in. Like, maybe if times were tough we’d have a different conversation, but Apple isn’t exactly hurting for cash here. We’re not even asking for decency, just to follow the law. They’ll bend over backwards to help out a thug like Putin when his lawyers send a takedown demand, but to do a solid for their deaf customers and employees… well they can’t be bothered.
[+] [-] adoxyz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebeforei485|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webmobdev|4 years ago|reply
A good question to ask Apple. Why are they hiring such people and then ignoring their workplace demands that would allow them to do thier job satisfactorily? Is there some federal program that allows them to claim some tax benefit by hiring the disabled? Is that why Apple doesn't care about them or their job performance?
[+] [-] wrestlerking|4 years ago|reply
How does the incidental learning work with the iPad? Are they experiencing equal employment opportunities as others? How can they contribute during the meetings without an interpreter? Should our expectations of them be lower because they are disabled?
[+] [-] tinus_hn|4 years ago|reply
Apple does pretty well in the accessibility department, they could use someone demonstrating it.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] emodendroket|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autoliteInline|4 years ago|reply
You could view it as a full employment plan.
The next logical step is to have a deaf man who only signs in Irish Sign Language. The first interpreter converts that to ASL, the second into spoken English.
[+] [-] madrox|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FFRefresh|4 years ago|reply
1. Cultural 'meme' & trend that has dramatically spread throughout mostly american, urban, educated, elite/elite-adjacent spaces over the last 7-9 years that lionizes and rewards those who can claim they are a 'victim'. This meme favors certain immutable characteristics as inherently providing victimhood status. If you were born with an immutable characteristic that's held in favor by the meme, you have many advantages available to you. Nobody is supposed to acknowledge those benefits according to this meme. So you can both be objectively very privileged and also considered a mostly helpless victim of an oppressor class.
2. Internet has allowed anyone to be heard, no matter the level in the hierarchy of a company. And if you know how to use the right words according to this victimhood meme (regardless of objective victim status), you have a good chance of being rewarded both socially and professionally. This is a pathway that some take if they don't believe they'll be able to succeed by other means.
3. Increasing trend toward 'safetyism', where the concept of harm is becoming looser and more abstract. You don't need to even be objectively or provably harmed anymore to claim you were harmed and thus victimized.
Given all of the above, it's not surprising that big tech companies who operate in these elite spaces will experience 'unrest' amongst their employees. Cultural winds have created pathways for people to both legitimately and illegitimately air grievances to attempt to be rewarded socially/professionally.
(And lest anyone interpret the above as suggesting nobody is ever objectively or truly victimized, I am most definitely not saying that.)
[+] [-] keyb0ardninja|4 years ago|reply
Here's is one of many of his videos on YouTube dealing exactly with this topic: https://youtu.be/jQcDw1r1lGw
[+] [-] fortran77|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] satisfice|4 years ago|reply
I was in Apple R&D for four years (during that period after Jobs left and before he returned). No one was hungry, few people I met were ambitious. I left mainly because they decided to treat software testers as second class citizens, and had no interest in supporting my attempts to innovate in the testing realm. I went to Borland, where morale was high and everyone wanted to beat Microsoft (until they gave up and basically bought our team).
The weird thing is that Apple worked really hard training its managers about the law and about good management practices in those days. I suspect they still do. I suspect that it has simply been overwhelmed by youngsters who expect mommy and daddy to fix everything up for their maximum comfort.
[+] [-] ALittleLight|4 years ago|reply
I'm impressed that Apple let her spend "several years" fighting a reassignment. I'm also not very sympathetic to this person though. I've quit a job because I got reorg'd into more work for less pay. It sucks, but I don't think it means my employer is problematic or bad or whatever. The role I had was no longer needed and I didn't like the new position I landed in, so I left. That sounds similar to what happened to this person.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|4 years ago|reply
What other geopolitical problems does this person think Apple should be tackling other than resolving tribal conflicts in war torn central Africa? The Taliban? Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women? Haiti’s poverty?
Ridiculous.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|4 years ago|reply
Is this attitude possibly because these companies hire based on the entire emotion that you’re special and elite and we’re all going to link arms and save the planet?
[+] [-] yunohn|4 years ago|reply
You quoted this, but seem to have ignored it. This was not a role that got deprecated, rather she complained that her/Apple’s work in that role was ineffective.
This is a very valid complaint, and the sign of a valuable employee. However, most corporations respond by covering up ineffectivity, which is why it turned out badly for her.
[+] [-] abandonliberty|4 years ago|reply
Not sure how the law varies state to state.
[+] [-] epistasis|4 years ago|reply
Dealing with highly paid, and highly desirable employees that can get a job at the drop of a hat, and which have ample savings to let them glide in any case, means that they have a lot of leverage. You need them just as much as they need you.
This is why political policy has been to keep away from full employment, and keep a continuous percentage of people unemployed at all times: power over labor. Without labor, capital and land are useless.
[+] [-] ytdytvhxgydvhh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vimy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolverine876|4 years ago|reply
This is a common talking point to marginalize political activity in any situation: 'It's just a tiny minority agitating', etc. In every situation, a tiny minority appeals to the majority and sometimes it convinces them. (If a majority of Americans ever protested something, that would be over 160 million people in the streets. Just think of the logistics of food, water, and waste ... cellular data bandwidth ... Twitter, Facebook and Instagram load ...)
That's how change happens; we try to persuade each other. People who are more involved, motivated, skilled, available, etc. do more of the work. If there was an environmental problem in SF Bay, the people who have the knowledge and expertise about the issue, and the communication skills, would inform and try to persuade everyone else. I'm not going to investigate it myself.
[+] [-] fragmede|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostinquebec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fortran77|4 years ago|reply
He made the wrong, worst people at the company feel "empowered" and now there's no stopping them.
[+] [-] Bahamut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamburglar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|4 years ago|reply
https://www.engadget.com/apple-faces-us-labor-board-investig...
[+] [-] Bud|4 years ago|reply
Color me unimpressed. She starts agitating after a few months of working entirely from home at a highly-paid gig? Did she even have time to get a clue about whether Apple's doing bad things or not? Or does she just kinda flit around from gig to gig looking for ways to cause trouble? I'm guessing less of the former, and more of the latter.
[+] [-] lukewarm_pocket|4 years ago|reply
Today, during the yearly Tim Cook's hands, wfh chat was talking smack about Apple even though they've officially gotten a response from corporate. It even spilled over to #talk-apple chat. Though, I gotta agree with some criticism. Apple has shot itself in the foot when it publicly takes political sides, and keeps a low radar on certain issues when employees expect Apple to take a stance. Overall, yes, Slack has changed a lot about Apple's culture.
[+] [-] szc|4 years ago|reply
This is at least the 2nd time on HN that a report has suggested Ashley Gjovik was complaining about "toxic chemicals at work". The previous article referred to something published at "The Verge" - "her office is in an Apple building located on a superfund site" <https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22666049/apple-fires-senio...>
Other published articles (and I believe is likely the truth) indicate that the toxic chemical issues were related to her personal living space <https://sfbayview.com/2021/03/i-thought-i-was-dying-my-apart...>
The nytimes ought to be very embarrassed about this stupid error.
I note that the personal toxic superfund site issues were previously discussed on HN.
I am also somewhat confused about the persona of "Cher Scarlett". I do not think it is a real identity. I also have some serious doubts if they, or their alter ego, is actually employed at Apple. Reputable journalists could actually verify this with employment and tax records -- journalists would actually have to do the necessary due diligence.
Twitter suggests that "Cher Scarlett" is located in Seattle. (This would make them a remote worker for Apple). Also seemingly making quite a lot of tweets. When does this person do any work for Apple? Is this person the reason why Apple isn't responding to Security reports and the bug bounty program?
After reading many tweets I am failing to detect any comprehension of, or demonstration of, a computer security "mindset" -- something that, in my experience, does tend to manifest itself in the personality of security folks over extended periods of time.
I am unable to determine what sort of security role this person has.
I am not suggesting any malice or ill will towards "Cher Scarlett". I am trying to present this as a technical analysis.
In summary, I really question if "Cher Scarlett" is actually a real person in they way they are presenting themselves to be.
[+] [-] thenanyu|4 years ago|reply
Given Benioff’s public persona I’m betting on the latter.
The one thing Slack has always sucked at is moderation tools.
[+] [-] chmaynard|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elefanten|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mansour00|4 years ago|reply
I'm embedded in the Apple universe, but I hate the company and what it has done to Silicon Valley.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] biglost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiphias2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemotron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikkinana|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ipspam|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]